Israeli Officials Insist Boy Might Be Alive Somewhere

Capping another round of denials by Israeli officials, the government has formally demanded that France 2 retract a September 2000 media report accusing Israeli soldiers of killing Mohammad al-Durrah, a 12-year-old boy, insisting that the report fueled “anti-Semitism.”

The “al-Durrah incident” involves a France 2 video of Durrah’s death, apparently in the crossfire of fighting during the beginning of the Second Intifada. The Israeli military conceded to the incident at the time, and the Israeli government apologized, though they later issued a retraction for that apology.

The retraction, and today’s demands, center on a growing conspiracy theory which has gained traction in Israeli circles, starting with it being unclear if they were Israeli bullets that killed the boy, and later doubting that he’d been killed at all.

That’s where we’re at now. Israeli officials insist that not only did the video of Durrah’s killing not happen as it seemed, but that Durrah “might be alive” somewhere. Not that they have any idea where he would be, nor can they prove that he survived.

Durrah’s father insists his son is where he’s been since 2000, in a grave. France 2 also stands by their story, and has offered to assist in an actual, independent investigation carried out according to international standards. The prospect of exhuming the body has been raised, but with Israeli officials comfortable with the narrative that the whole thing never happened, digging around for actual evidence seems to be a low priority for them.

The story that the intifada, that all the anti-Israel speeches since 2000 that mentioned Durrah’s killing are all based on a lie is an attractive one for Israeli officials. The fact that there is a body already buried 13 years ago, and the supposedly alive Durrah is nowhere to be found don’t appear to have been enough to stop presenting the conspiracy theory as absolute truth.

The unarmed father and son were attacked the most brutal way while trying to cross the road by the IDF, both were shoot and killed cold blooded by this apartheid regime.., know they are trying to silence the world by protesting the French TV 2 showing the footage. The state of Israel needs to be answering to ICC for more of their inhuman acts against humanity then this. We have said it from day one.., the only language that Israel ever understand is the world boycott of Israel.

Well, I think Israeli officials have an easy way out of creating all those "anti-Semites" of the world if they start to treat those Semites of Palestine (Arabs and real Jews albeit islamicised) as human beings. But even easier would be if they stop using this moniker and replace it with true non-racial name "anti-Zionists". One honest Jew Ilav Ziv made a documentary “Exile: A Myth Unearthed" which see Palestinians differently then Zionist propaganda.

A pathetic attempt to evade justice. Eventually, all in vain. Initially only very bright people see through it, but keeping pulling the same stunt and eventually even the ignorant Christian Zionists will feel uncomfortable.

More and more people all over the world are turning on the Zionist pariah state, who never had a realistic claim to Palestine. All they have done is bring misery, death, terrorism, and torture to these desecrated lands. France must stick to their guns, and tell the war criminals..NO!

Mr Knapp, I'm afraid you have decided to offend. I am however, grateful to you at least for a response. Let me add this: your approach reeks of trial without jury, no less, Conceivable I suspect only when talk is of jooooooz (your word not mine). I have on another occasion noted tones of a more generic racism in antiwar communications without provoking a response such as this. This is, I think, one of the reasons why antiwar, which is in many ways excellent, ultimately fails to deliver and functions in the last analysis as a gatekeeper. It is significant that abuse such as yours – not mine – should be allowed to appear on such a site as this whose general tone is – thankfully! – courteous and respectful. An apology from you would be in order.

"Trial without jury" implies that there's some adversarial context here. There isn't.

An "apology" would imply that I work for, or am in some way obligated to, you and have been remiss in fulfilling that obligation. I don't and I haven't been.

I work for Antiwar.com. Part of my job is keeping the worst racial/ethnic hate off the site. Since you only occasionally, and possibly unintentionally, descend into that category, I bar your comments when you do. If you did it more frequently or if I was sure that it was intentional, I'd just ban you.

I don't make work for myself by trying to redeem the irredeemable; I save my efforts for those who might actually have worth and value. Which category you fall into is something I haven't decided yet.